Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

intel_http

Makes a live HEAD request to the target domain from the Cloudflare edge, follows up to 5 redirects, and returns the full redirect chain, final HTTP status, key response headers, a security header score, and any third-party surveillance actors referenced in the Content-Security-Policy header.

Use this tool when:

  • You want to verify whether a site enforces HTTPS and HSTS.

  • You need to inspect what third-party scripts a site loads via its CSP header.

  • You are assessing a domain's security posture before trusting it.

  • You want to detect surveillance actors embedded in a site's CSP.

Do NOT use this tool when:

  • You need tracker database data (category, score, entity) — use get_domain instead.

  • You need the technology stack (CMS, framework) — use intel_stack instead.

  • You need robots.txt AI crawler policy — use intel_robots instead.

Inputs:

  • domain (query, required): Domain to probe. Can include or omit https://. Examples: nytimes.com, https://example.com.

Returns:

  • reachable: false if the domain did not respond within 6 seconds.

  • redirect_chain: each hop with URL, status code, and Location header.

  • security_headers.score: 0-100 based on presence of HSTS, CSP, X-Content-Type, X-Frame-Options, Referrer-Policy.

  • security_headers.missing: list of headers absent.

  • csp_actors: known surveillance actors detected in the CSP header.

  • error: set if the connection failed.

Cost:

  • Free. No API key required.

Latency:

  • Typical: 1-3s (outbound fetch), p99: 6s (timeout). Plan for async if chaining calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoWhen true, return a task handle immediately instead of blocking. Poll get_task for the result.
domainYes
receiptNoWhen true, attach a signed Receipt v1.0 committed to the transparency log. Additive — a signing failure never costs you the observation (ADR-014).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the live network request nature, 5-redirect limit, 6-second timeout, return schema details, free cost, and 1-3s typical latency. It even notes that async may be needed for chaining calls, making behavior predictable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but organized with labeled sections (Use this tool when, Do NOT use, Inputs, Returns, Cost, Latency), each earning its place. Information is scannable and front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and high behavioral complexity, the description provides complete operational context: return fields defined, timeout, cost, and explicit alternative routing. An agent could confidently decide to invoke or avoid this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67% (async/receipt described; domain only has an example). The description compensates by explaining domain format ('Can include or omit https://') with examples. Async and receipt already have schema descriptions, so the tool covers all parameters adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Makes a live HEAD request to the target domain' and enumerates unique outputs (redirect chain, security header score, CSP actors). It distinguishes itself from siblings through the 'Do NOT use' section, naming intel_stack and intel_robots as alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Lists explicit use cases ('verify whether a site enforces HTTPS and HSTS', 'inspect third-party scripts via CSP') and explicit exclusions with tool alternatives ('use get_domain', 'use intel_stack', 'use intel_robots'). This leaves no ambiguity about placement among the sibling set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources